IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2312.05977.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Rank-Dependent Theory for Decision under Risk and Ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Roger J. A. Laeven
  • Mitja Stadje

Abstract

This paper axiomatizes, in a two-stage setup, a new theory for decision under risk and ambiguity. The axiomatized preference relation $\succeq$ on the space $\tilde{V}$ of random variables induces an ambiguity index $c$ on the space $\Delta$ of probabilities, a probability weighting function $\psi$, generating the measure $\nu_{\psi}$ by transforming an objective probability measure, and a utility function $\phi$, such that, for all $\tilde{v},\tilde{u}\in\tilde{V}$, \begin{align*} \tilde{v}\succeq\tilde{u} \Leftrightarrow \min_{Q \in \Delta} \left\{\mathbb{E}_Q\left[\int\phi\left(\tilde{v}^{\centerdot}\right)\,\mathrm{d}\nu_{\psi}\right]+c(Q)\right\} \geq \min_{Q \in \Delta} \left\{\mathbb{E}_Q\left[\int\phi\left(\tilde{u}^{\centerdot}\right)\,\mathrm{d}\nu_{\psi}\right]+c(Q)\right\}. \end{align*} Our theory extends the rank-dependent utility model of Quiggin (1982) for decision under risk to risk and ambiguity, reduces to the variational preferences model when $\psi$ is the identity, and is dual to variational preferences when $\phi$ is affine in the same way as the theory of Yaari (1987) is dual to expected utility. As a special case, we obtain a preference axiomatization of a decision theory that is a rank-dependent generalization of the popular maxmin expected utility theory. We characterize ambiguity aversion in our theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger J. A. Laeven & Mitja Stadje, 2023. "A Rank-Dependent Theory for Decision under Risk and Ambiguity," Papers 2312.05977, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2312.05977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.05977
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger J. A. Laeven & Mitja Stadje, 2013. "Entropy Coherent and Entropy Convex Measures of Risk," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 265-293, May.
    2. Andrzej Ruszczyński & Alexander Shapiro, 2006. "Optimization of Convex Risk Functions," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 433-452, August.
    3. David Wozabal, 2014. "Robustifying Convex Risk Measures for Linear Portfolios: A Nonparametric Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1302-1315, December.
    4. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    5. Yaari, Menahem E., 1969. "Some remarks on measures of risk aversion and on their uses," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 315-329, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Knispel, Thomas & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Svindland, Gregor, 2016. "Robust optimal risk sharing and risk premia in expanding pools," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 182-195.
    2. Volker Krätschmer & Marcel Ladkau & Roger J. A. Laeven & John G. M. Schoenmakers & Mitja Stadje, 2018. "Optimal Stopping Under Uncertainty in Drift and Jump Intensity," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(4), pages 1177-1209, November.
    3. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    4. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    5. Robert Nau, 2001. "De Finetti was Right: Probability Does Not Exist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 89-124, December.
    6. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2002. "Coping with imprecise information: a decision theoretic approach," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04056, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised May 2004.
    7. Strzalecki, Tomasz & Werner, Jan, 2011. "Efficient allocations under ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 1173-1194, May.
    8. John Quiggin, 2022. "Production under uncertainty and choice under uncertainty in the emergence of generalized expected utility theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 717-729, April.
    9. Grant, S. & Quiggin, J., 2001. "A Model-Free Definition of Increasing Uncertainty," Discussion Paper 2001-84, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. Aharon Ben-Tal & Dimitris Bertsimas & David B. Brown, 2010. "A Soft Robust Model for Optimization Under Ambiguity," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(4-part-2), pages 1220-1234, August.
    11. Martins-da-Rocha, V. Filipe, 2010. "Interim efficiency with MEU-preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1987-2017, September.
    12. Grant, Simon & Quiggin, John, 2005. "Increasing uncertainty: a definition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 117-141, March.
    13. Xiangyu Qu, 2015. "A belief-based definition of ambiguity aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 15-30, July.
    14. Boonen, Tim J. & Ghossoub, Mario, 2023. "Bowley vs. Pareto optima in reinsurance contracting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(1), pages 382-391.
    15. Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7616, David K. Levine.
    16. Hill, Brian, 2023. "Beyond uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 196-222.
    17. Peter Klibanoff & Sujoy Mukerji & Kyoungwon Seo, 2014. "Perceived Ambiguity and Relevant Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1945-1978, September.
    18. Bellini, Fabio & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Rosazza Gianin, Emanuela, 2021. "Dynamic robust Orlicz premia and Haezendonck–Goovaerts risk measures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 438-446.
    19. Hill, Brian, 2013. "Confidence and decision," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 675-692.
    20. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2022. "Ambiguity aversion and wealth effects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2312.05977. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.